The Charter allows all Canadians to freely express their thoughts and opinions, it also protects everyone's right to be treated fairly, without discrimination — a point that "freedom of speech" advocates sometimes ignore.

Hate Propaganda vs. Free Speech
In a high-profile case in 1990, the Supreme Court of Canada weighed James Keegstra’s rights to free speech against the offence of wilfully promoting hatred under the Criminal Code. As a teacher, Keegstra made racist comments in the classroom.

The court ruled that under section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, a limitation of free expression is justified in a democratic society. The court stated that since hate propaganda harms us all, then stopping its spread helps people from different backgrounds to live together — and may even reduce violence in Canada. For these reasons, the Supreme Court said that section 1 of the Charter "saves" the crime of wilfully promoting hatred. In other words, the court said that that Keegstra had in fact broken the law.

Not that there's anything wonderful about hate speech, but as long as a threat is not being made, it is just a person expressing themselves. When you censor one group (let's say the Neo Nazi's to protect the Jews), then you open the door to censor anyone else (let's say Project Avalon to protect the federal government). There really is no difference there. Free speech should be protected for everyone, regardless of whether you agree with what they are saying.

Not that there's anything wonderful about hate speech, but as long as a threat is not being made, it is just a person expressing themselves. When you censor one group (let's say the Neo Nazi's to protect the Jews), then you open the door to censor anyone else (let's say Project Avalon to protect the federal government). There really is no difference there. Free speech should be protected for everyone, regardless of whether you agree with what they are saying.

I was amazed to watch the childishness of the college students in Canada protesting Ms. Coulters supposedly 'hate speech' before she even said a word. It is almost like watching the way possessed people react as a exorcist approaches; head spinning around, yelling and screaming, frothing at the mouth.

It reminded me exactly of what occurred here at Avalon which, in the defense of Avalon, didn't occur until 'after' someone said something TPTB didn't like.

Well Canada is taking a new course. Yes we have severe problems here in the USA but Canada, yes oh Canada, will shut you down BEFORE you have a chance to say it - welcome tyranny.

While I support freedom of speech, I think people need to realize there is a responsibility inerent in it.
It is one thing to express a point of view with respect for others point of view, it is something different to express with violence language.

The Keestra case:
Freedom of speech and the prosecution of harmful ideas1986
by John Dixon for the BCCLA

Introduction

Over the past few years, the prosecution of Jim Keegstra and Ernst Zundel for expressing racist ideas have placed civil libertarians at the centre of a prolonged public debate over whether the speech of racists and hate-mongers should be permitted expression in a democratic community. Many members of the public who questioned the prosecution of Keegstra and Zundel, including a few leaders of minority groups, doubted that either would be effectively punished or silenced by such action.

It is difficult to disagree with this assessment given the notoriety and media attention that each received (and continues to receive). However, such considerations do not really amount to a defence of free speech, but a choice between the lesser of evils. The question still remains: Was the democratic principle of free speech meant to encompass hateful expression? Public discussion of these cases lacked any thorough-going consideration of the issues involved in answering this question. Not surprisingly, neither Keegstra nor Zundel made the issue of free speech a substantial part of their defences, preferring instead to use the courts as a vehicle for demonstrating the truth of their cockamamy views about international Jewish conspiracy and "revisionist" accounts of the Holocaust. This article provides the civil libertarian account of why even the hateful railings of the likes of Keegstra and Zundel deserve the protection of the democratic forum. It was written after the prosecution of Jim Keegstra in the summer of 1985 and published by The Canadian Forum magazine in April 1986 under the title "The Politics of Speech".

Is there anything left to say about Jim Keegstra and his punishment? The slow news months of the Canadian summer [of 1985] made room for hundreds of stories, articles, editorials, reports, letters, and cartoons that addressed the utterances and fate of this dreary man whose mind may safely be said to be one of the most underdeveloped regions of Alberta.

Virtually everyone in Canada has certainly, by now, given some thought to the claim to national significance of a person who believes that both Trudeau and Kissinger are conscious tools of the Kremlin, and who thinks that it makes sense to accuse Jews of conspiring (for centuries, yet) to persuade the human race to embrace an ideology of equal rights. It is tempting to judge that too many trees have already died to make the newsprint for our prolonged peep at this cultural marginalia. Such a judgement would certainly be justified if it were only Mr. Keegstra who has been fixing the attention of the nation and its press. The defendant has been, however, merely an occasion (the second in very recent memory) for Canadians to renew their struggle with the old idea of prosecuting speech crime. Keegstra may soon be restored to the obscurity which his indictment interrupted, but the deep source of the significance of his case is fated—indeed, deserves—to remain newsworthy. The big news is that we—the true North, strong and free—are willing to use the force of the law to suppress offensive talk. This is a durable story, and civil libertarians have a part to play in the thorough telling of it.

The B.C. Civil Liberties Association is, of course, "for" free speech and "against" censorship. We are not, however, "for" Keegstra and "against" those who sought his prosecution. Our position is, unhappily or not, more complicated than that. It certainly does not, at the very least, lend itself to expression in a few clauses, however judiciously chosen by either ourselves or the reporting media. Perhaps now, when at least some of the passion aroused by the Keegstra case has been spent, is the appropriate moment for us to have our say.

Civil libertarians think Keegstra's obsessive "historical" ravings were at once an abuse of his position as a teacher of high school students and incontrovertible evidence of professional incompetence. No person can legitimately take shelter under the freedom of expression protections of a democracy when the expressions at issue are made while undertaking the public responsibility of educating children. The elementary and high school systems are not viewed by civil libertarians as part of the public forum we seek to protect from censorship. We doubt that it makes sense to apply a notion such as censorship when we judge professional wisdom of what is chosen for the attention of not yet fully-fledged minds.

Far from arguing that Keegstra had a civil right to continue spreading his dreck at Eckville High, civil libertarians wonder (along with the rest of Canada, we hope) why it took twelve years for the local school board to exercise its appropriate authority and fire him. But at least Keegstra was finally fired, and was finally removed from his position as Mayor of Eckville. We were slow off the mark, but Canadians finally did the right thing with the right tools. Keegstra was punished: we had set him aside.

Only to pick him up again in January 1984 as a defendant in a hate propaganda case. It is at this point that the position of civil libertarians diverges sharply from that of so many other thinking Canadians. When Keegstra was charged under the provisions of Section 281.2 of the Criminal Code, he was not being charged with an abuse of his professional position as it touched the welfare of minors (unsurprisingly, since it is not the function of the Code to regulate professional conduct as such), but rather with the general offence of wilfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group. Civil libertarians hold the view—and we have held it since the Cohen Commission recommended the present law in 1965—that the hate propaganda provisions of the Code represent an unacceptable departure from democratic practice that is grounded in an ill-informed notion of what democracy means. Believing this we must believe and urge that Mr. Keegstra should never have been made the subject of criminal prosecution.

Let me state our position (perhaps it would be more forthright to say "our dilemma") bluntly: we hold that the wilful attempt to promote hatred against an identifiable group is immoral, but we also argue that the expressions that form such attempts must be protected from legal sanction or obstruction. (We emphasize that protection should be limited to "expressions" because we are at least sometimes misunderstood as holding the view that even racist "acts" should be protected as a sort of civil right. Related to this confusion is the interesting claim that there really isn’t any morally or politically relevant difference between talk and action, and that the non-existence of such a difference makes our position nonsensical. Treatment of this form of moral dyslexia would require a separate and more extensive article than this one.) We realize that these two judgements: "Yes, it’s immoral. No, there shouldn’t be a law against it."—make an odd couple. Having identified the expressions of Keegstra as hateful—and not just aesthetically hateful, but hateful in the serious sense that they strike at our rightful recognition of one another as equal participants in a community—how can we avoid the implication that there ought to be a law to protect us from this threat? Those who oppose the civil libertarian position claim to smell an ideology under this compost of paradox, and dismiss us as impractical and irrelevant ideologues... or much worse. They are, we admit, partly right in this—we do have some ideas; we disagree, however, about the value and significance of those ideas.

We disagree because our main idea as civil libertarians is, in fact, the idea of democracy; and the idea of democracy is not just "our" idea as civil libertarians—it is, if you will, the idea of Canada. The central idea of democracy is, of course, that the only form of government consistent with the dignity of full personhood is self-government. Any other form of government however wise, provident, enlightened, efficient, or seemingly inevitable—is inconsistent with the adulthood of our species. It’s a great idea and, seemingly, an irresistible one. It is impossible to call to mind any contemporary state, however totalitarian in fact, that does not seek to legitimize its dictates by invoking "the will of the people". We remind (congratulate?) ourselves when we reflect upon nominal democracies that we are citizens of the real thing. We really do rule ourselves; we really are the sovereign authority in Canada. Parliament, legislative assemblies, and municipal councils do not rule us: these are but among the instruments that we use in governing ourselves. All of us are called, as citizens of a democracy, to a perpetual term of office as members of a ruling assembly—and as such we all have work to do that can never be delegated. The hands and minds of sovereign citizens must be free to do their work of ruling, and thus it is that citizens claim a range of liberties and rights not as petitioners or subjects before governments, but as the central branch of government, the legitimate source of all political authority in the state.

If we take seriously the idea that the ruler of Canada is the Canadian people, then we must take seriously a direct corollary of that idea: the mind of every Canadian citizen is an element of the thinking, deliberating and judging intelligence that is the real boss in this country. Seeing this, we must also see that those minds can never tolerate any subordinate authority in the State to pre-empt their ruling work by controlling the access to the public forum of thoughts or expressions. For what kind of ruling authority could accept a censor without realizing that in doing so it was effectively relinquishing its power to confront and make sense of the world by its own lights? A censoring authority controls access to information, and in doing so it controls the minds of those who are subject to it. A ruler who accepts a censor accepts a regent, and the acceptance of a regent is a form of abdication of the sovereign role.

It is these considerations that are at the heart of a democratic people's insistence upon the paramount status of the right to freedom of expression in the hierarchy of rights it claims as indefeasible Not even a "moral majority" can undertake, in a democracy, to exclude offensive expressions even morally offensive expressions from the protection that we jealously accord the communication of thoughts and ideas in the public forum. The freedom of our forum is not the capricious symptom of some distaste we share for subjecting our public utterances and musings to reasonable limits. It is a condition that our chosen form of government imposes upon us no matter what the demands of taste—even moral taste—wish to impose. Any retreat on this matter signifies the onset of a kind of spiritual amnesia; and if we forget that we rule, we shall not rule.

All this may seem relatively easy to take, perhaps even platitudinous until we get down to cases. Surely we didn’t mean to include that! Not him! Don’t tell us that the advice to hate an identifiable group falls within the range of thoughts and expressions which we must not use the force of the law to suppress! What conceivable role can hate-mongering play in the lofty deliberative work of a ruling people? The answer to this question depends upon the answer to another question: Is it not precisely in those areas of human conflict and disagreement that matter the most to all of us that feelings run highest and form an inextricable element of contending expressions? Or, to put it more bluntly: Who said the deliberative work of a ruling people was going to be "lofty"? The discussion of politics and religion is excluded from genteel barber shops precisely because such subjects are guaranteed to bring forth heartfelt expressions which are inconsistent with easy fellowship and the presence of straight razors. And if you don’t think that race and creed are located in the heartland of contentious concern, ask your barber. The contributions of "the People” (remember us?) to the rather anarchic business of a country thinking out loud simply cannot be limited to the controlled prose of academic journals without being substantially censored. Though it may be regrettable, it is nonetheless true that hatred is a garden-variety emotional posture of persons who are engaged, heart and soul, in the business of disapproving.

A case in point: in a recent issue of the New York Review of Books, there was a caricature, by David Levine, of Prime Minister Botha of South Africa. Botha is depicted by Levine as a glum visage nestling under the helmut of a Nazi soldier. Would it be going too far to suppose that Levine was expressing disapproval of Botha's policies that was far enough up the scale to count as hatred? And were those Afrikaaners represented by Botha linked, with him, to those features of totalitarianism that the hateful shape of that helmut symbolizes for us? Was Levine promoting hatred of persons or of policies? Are persons and their policies easy for us to distinguish when our deeply-felt antipathy is aroused? And what if Levine had plunked his hat down on someone else? Yasser Arafat. A caricature of a Palestinian. Or, if that doesn’t grab you . . . Ariel Sharon. A caricature of a Jew. Moral, racial, and religious sensibilities are prodded and affronted by such expressions, and the drive to rejoin and rebut is naturally transfigured into the drive to punish by elimination and suppression. But the proddings of our democratic sensibilities (never natural, always the tender creatures of assiduous cultivation) must tell us then that we cannot choose to protect or punish expressions by counting up the numbers of the oxes that are gored, or by attending to their colour. For if that is our policy, we are clearly foreclosing public expression on matters that belong on the agenda of those who rule.

A democratic people that is self-conscious about its project of self-government cannot take refuge in legal instruments of censorship and repression when its way of thinking is threatened by public expressions of racial or religious hatred. It cannot delegate to either its legislative or judicial agents the related tasks of judgement and engagement that the continuing presence of hateful speech imposes upon it. And judge and engage we must! The insistence of civil libertarians that we provide political freedom even for the ideas of Keegstra and Zundel is not to be equated with any soft-headed notion of general tolerance. A commitment to the protection of free expression is not a programme of glad suffering of fools and foolishness. We must all, as both ruler and as individuals, live lives of judicious intolerance for hateful ideas and expressions. It is, of course, tiresome to engage the thin-witted and their noisome ideas, and it is irksome to realize that there is no respite from this duty to be hoped for. Both experience and reason concur, however, in recognizing that only such a programme of democratic responsibility can be at once effectual in changing minds (slowly, oh so slowly) and consistent with our recognition in one another of a collegial identity.

Even those who hear all of this and own the general force of it often have a special objection to make in connection with cases such as Keegstra's and Zundel's These two men have taken into their mouths one of the most horrific and significant elements of the Jewish experience and made it filthy with a denial of its very existence. The “idea” that the Holocaust did not occur is so palpably wounding that it is arguable that its expression stands apart from other thoughts and words in a class all of its own. Here, it is objected, is a special thought which demands, even if no other thought does, formal repudiation by the State. No other reaction, it is argued, can begin to restore the balance of our senses; no lesser response could reaffirm and hence at least partly restore our sanity

I have no right to speak of the Holocaust. I am not a survivor; I am not a relative or friend of one of the murdered; I am not a Jew. Nevertheless, I must, as must all morally alive persons, struggle to understand what the lesson of the Holocaust is. If we don’t let the world teach us, the world will teach us a lesson. But what were we taught? What must we grasp in order to avoid being taught another lesson? This is too huge a question to be handled in an adequate way here, but let me identify at least one misinterpretation of the oracular voice of history.

Proponents of this interpretation hold that the Holocaust teaches us that we must not be wholehearted in our commitment to the project of self-government. We must not trust the uncensored, unobstructed expression of thoughts and ideas that is the mark of a people who rule themselves. We must, in order to forestall evil actions, forestall at least some evil thinking and saying. We have to draw the line somewhere, and those who remember what happened will choose to draw it short of the historical revisions offered by Jim Keegstra and Ernst Zunde1. This is not the lesson of the Holocaust—and on this point I have a right and duty to speak as a citizen.

Before the Nazi deluge, Germany had a system of hate propaganda laws that were far broader and more strict than those of the Canadian Criminal Code. Prosecution of anti-Semitic expressions were initiated, fought, and carefully reported by the Central Verein Deutscher Staatsburger Judischen Glaubens (Central Union of German Citizens of the Jewish Faith). The records of the Central Verein reveal that over 200 prosecutions of anti-Semitic propaganda went forward over a period of about 15 years, and of these, about 10 percent were regarded by legal staff of the Central Verein as objectionable in the sense that they eventuated in verdicts that were either absolutely unjust or too lenient. This means that by their own standards of success the German Jewish community enjoyed a success rate of about ninety percent in prosecuting anti-Semitic insults. In at least one reported case, a street conversation between two persons that was overheard by a Jew was the basis of a prosecution. Nor was the scope of the prosecutions limited to small fry: Joseph Goebbels was convicted twice — sentenced once to six weeks imprisonment and once to three weeks for insulting Bernard Weiss, a Jewish deputy police commissioner in Berlin; Julius Streicher and Karl Holz, editors of the Nazi newspaper Der Sturmer, were convicted and sentenced to prison terms of four months and one year respectively. It is true that some managed to stall long enough to avoid actual imprisonment, and that some few members of the judiciary were sympathetic to the defendants; but in general both the judiciary and the German people acceded to a remarkable campaign on the part of German Jewry to use the power of the State to punish anti-Semitic propaganda.

The point of this story is not that the work of the Central Verein was a failure. The point is that the success of the prosecution of anti-Semitic propaganda and insults was of that tragic kind that we term self-defeating. The prosecution became, unsurprisingly, a sustained public drama that fed—though most certainly did not inspire—the emerging mythologies of Jewish conspiracy and Aryan martyrdom. The role played by these myths in the developing insanity of fascism does not need to be recounted here.

It would be stupid to pretend to discover the cause of the Holocaust in the work of the Central Verein. It would be equally idle, however, to represent a program of censorship as the weapon to use in the pacification of racist minds. In fact, if history has any practical lesson to offer in this connection, it is that minds and ideas—evil or otherwise offer a protean resistance to repression. And when we consider the forms of repression that can imaginably be embraced by a democracy (our hate propaganda laws, for instance) it is difficult to foresee their use producing any result other than the provision of a public focal point for minds and ideas that positively thirst for publicity and a sense that they belong at the centre of things rather than at the edge.

The history lesson that bears remembering now is that the failure of German democracy was, most emphatically, not attributable to German resistance to the control of hateful expressions. German democracy failed because the citizens of the Weimar Republic did not take responsibility for the course of their politics. They disengaged; they stood by; they waited for direction; they forgot that as self-governing women and men they must always think and live the lives of rulers. Their acquiescence to censorship of hate propaganda was not an anomaly: it was a symptom of their general conditions of readiness to be ruled. And they got their ruler....

In fact, because of the heart-stunning scale of the evil of those who came to rule in Germany, it can be said that we all “got” the Nazis. They provided us with a lesson in unbuttoned enthusiasm for thought and speech control that has made the swastika the emblem of all those whose politics run to the repression of minds and ideas. Millions died in the successful struggle to defeat a Germany gone mad. Many thousands of Canadians died, a significant proportion of them in the belief that they were making the world “safe for democracy.” Those words (offered first by President Wilson) have been, as we all know, made sour for us by our powerful neighbours; but they still mean now what they meant then. And they never meant “safe” is the same as “happily ever after.” They meant “safe” in the sense of “possible again.” We can, just possibly, still take seriously our commitment to govern ourselves. We shall have to do and bear much in the process—not the least of which is the determined provision of political freedom not only for the thoughts that we love, but also for the thoughts that we hate. And as the great teacher put all spiritual temporizers in their place: "If not now, when?"

On December 13, 2002, Ahenakew gave a speech to an FSIN group, which was attended by James Parker, a reporter from the Saskatoon StarPhoenix. He made references to "goddamn immigrants" in Canada during his speech. During a question-and-answer session following his lecture, Ahenakew said that Jews were a disease in Germany and that Hitler was trying to "clean up Europe" when he "fried six million of those guys." He also stated his opinion that Israel and the United States (specifically mentioning George W. Bush) were going to start the next world war.[2]

The Germans used to tell me, and I got to know them well because I played soccer against them and with them and so forth. But they used to tell me that you guys are blessed. What we know about the Indians in Canada. They are blessed. But that blessing is being destroyed by your immigrants that are going over there. Especially the Jews, they said. The Second World War was started by the Jews and the Third World War, whatever it is, is between Israel and the Arab countries. I was there as well. But there's going to be a war because the Israelis and the “Bushies” – you know, the bully, the bigot in the United States – tells you that if you're not with me you're against me.

After the session concluded, the StarPhoenix reporter asked him to clarify these remarks, and he explained that while serving in the army after the war, Germans had told him the Jews had provoked the war. The StarPhoenix quoted him as further saying:

The Jews damn near owned all of Germany prior to the war. That's why Hitler came in. He was going to make damn sure that the Jews didn't take over Germany, or even Europe. That's why he fried six million of those guys, you know. Jews would have owned the goddamned world. And look what they're doing now, they're killing people in Arab countries.

The reporter asked how Ahenakew could justify the Holocaust. The StarPhoenix quoted Ahenakew as replying:

How else do you get rid of a disease like that, that's going to take over, that's going to dominate?

The comments were first circulated in the Canadian national media several days later, and were quickly condemned as antisemitic by Jewish groups, aboriginal leaders and Canadian politicians alike. Both Perry Bellegarde, president of FSIN, and Matthew Coon Come, AFN national chief, were quick to distance themselves from Ahenakew's comments.

In June 2003, Ahenakew was formally charged by the Saskatchewan Justice Department with promoting hatred.[2]

In an interview in the July/August 2003 edition of This Magazine, Ahenakew expressed to reporter Alex Roslin his dissatisfaction with what he called "racial control" of the media, saying that "when a group of people, a race of people, control the world media, something has to be done about it." The article also quotes claims that Ahenakew had long held racist beliefs against Jews, Blacks and other ethnic groups that had been shielded from the public.[3]

In connection with the remarks from 2002, which were recorded on tape with his knowledge, Ahenakew was later convicted in July 2005 of willfully promoting hatred against Jews. Ahenakew apologized for the remarks, saying they did not represent his beliefs and that he was "caught up in the heat of the moment. I was attempting to spark debate on what has been happening to our First Nations people." At his trial, he later recanted his apology and blamed his outburst on his diabetes, some wine and a change in medication, a defense that was rejected by the court and he was subsequently fined $1,000. Despite this, he retained his belief that the Jews started the Second World War. Jewish groups, aboriginals and politicians later called for Ahenakew's membership in the Order of Canada to be revoked. The Governor General revoked Ahenakew's membership shortly after his trial.[4]

the students were ****** about a comment she said "muslims should not fly in planes, the should use flying carpets"

Students are a source of our collective consciousness..on BOTH sides of ANY issue

Their reaction should make us question and wonder WHY.

Whether you agree with the laws here or not... it is thought provoking and i felt an issue that should be INTELLIGENTLY debated..

Debates using insults are weak. I look for OPPOSING views...i LOVE to discuss the more "sensitive" issues with people who can present an opposing view to mine so i can LEARN something...when people attack other people to make a point...NO ONE HEARS ANYTHING EXCEPT THE INSULTS...

This is not only a topical theme for PA but for all IMO

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigmo

I was amazed to watch the childishness of the college students in Canada protesting Ms. Coulters supposedly 'hate speech' before she even said a word. It is almost like watching the way possessed people react as a exorcist approaches; head spinning around, yelling and screaming, frothing at the mouth.

It reminded me exactly of what occurred here at Avalon which, in the defense of Avalon, didn't occur until 'after' someone said something TPTB didn't like.

Well Canada is taking a new course. Yes we have severe problems here in the USA but Canada, yes oh Canada, will shut you down BEFORE you have a chance to say it - welcome tyranny.

From what I can see Ann Coulter hadn't even made it to the venue nor had she spoken a word and they 'shut her down'. They have that right to do that, I won't dispute that. I doubt that many would consider that group of students understanding and tolerant.

Do you see what I'm getting at Celine?

Anyone should have the freedom to say whatever they wish to say about whom ever they wish without a government entity threatening to 'shut them down'. (I'm not talking about yelling 'FIRE!' in a theater either)

From where I stand your position seems to be this:

"I agree with free speech as long as it doesn't make me feel uncomfortable, get's me angry or hurts my feelings or anyone elses."

Ok I follow but now here's the big question.

"Who get's to decide if your free speech is uncomfortable, offensive or hurtful?"

That's the whole problem.

Anyone could make the claim that any other persons remarks are 'hurtful'. Then everyone should be censored who makes remarks that hurt someone elses feeling. That's a slippery slope to slavery! The only way anyone can decide such a thing is by taking a vote.

So a persons comments could be determined 'hurtful' simply by a determining the popularity of the person making the comments. This is what is called mob rule... just as occurred here at Avalon a few weeks back and just as the students chose to do last night in Canada.

Ann remarked that her comments about the magic carpet and camel ride were taken out of context and were two different statements made 10 minutes apart in her speech somewhere else. They were sound bites and stitched together for the effect. The students didn't seem to really care if that was the 'truth'. They just didn't want her there... that's all. (or at least a small vocal group didn't)

Finally one more comment on listening to what students have to say. Yes we should and it should be done in a respectful and peaceful manner as all disagreements should be undertaken.

Just because someone attends college does not make them smart and just because someone gets an advanced degree does not grant them wisdom. There is a lot of pseudo intellectualism fomented by the educational elite throughout the west to promote their 'unique vision of the world' It is paid for by our tax dollars. It is elitism - you're either with them or against them. Doesn't that sound familiar?

Broken record time: I will continue to support the concept of Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom. The three qualifying words...maximize true freedom...over an indefinite time-frame. Otherwise...freedom is fleeting. True Freedom vs False Freedom is a subject which should be studied and studied and studied. There is often a very fine line between Free Speech and Hate Speech. If someone exposes fraud, corruption, lies, misuse, and abuse...could this person be shut-up by charging them with 'hate speech'? Can websites and forums which are exposing fraud, corruption, lies, misuse, and abuse...be shut-down by charging them with 'hate speech'?

Surely we should be able to make our own minds up which way we want to go... If someone wants to start spouting that sort of thing then we will reap all that it brings... If we teach love and understanding thats what we get... If only life was so simple..

Example: In previous lives I was a complete ar*se-hole doing all sorts of stuff raking up my karma. I then die, my next life I want to change, start loving and teaching all that is good.... But for the hell of me I cant reason why I am having such a bad time of it... Is life this simple, I wonder..

If you start taking free speech from someone, maybe yours might get taken... Im not for one second saying that we should sit by and let people say all sort of sh't without telling them they are wrong, far from it but if there voice is taken how can we fight them in the open. There opinions will not change... Or are people simply too stupid to make up their own minds... Which is exactly what the elites think of us... We are all sheep and people shouldn't or cant make up their own minds..

I say give them a platform and then rip them down with love and logic but never take their platform as we will not be able to see who or where they are to find them.

Treat others as you would want to be treated. Alienating, discriminating has always been a hugh problem in human civilization. The lack of respect and tolerance towards another person’s point of view will obviously cause a negative reaction. Debates are supposed to be healthy; various perspectives often provide better clarity on the issue. When ever I see the act of elitism or silencing being displayed, I suspect someone has something to hide. Getting to the truth of it all should never cause disharmony…unless there is a hidden agenda involved.

We all can work it out. I don’t really know what went down here at Avalon, but as far as this place is concern…choosing not to work it out and deciding to propagate upon selectivity is quite a contradiction.

"First they came ..." is a popular poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. In Niemöller's first utterance of it, in a January 6, 1946 speech before representatives of the Confessing Church in Frankfurt, it went (in German):[1]

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

"First they came ..." is a popular poem attributed to Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) about the inactivity of German intellectuals following the Nazi rise to power and the purging of their chosen targets, group after group. In Niemöller's first utterance of it, in a January 6, 1946 speech before representatives of the Confessing Church in Frankfurt, it went (in German):[1]

"THEY CAME FIRST for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

THEN THEY CAME for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

THEN THEY CAME for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.

THEN THEY CAME for me
and by that time no one was left to speak up."

Namaste Constitutional Responsible Freedom

Free speech is a misnomer.
It came at a high price, it had to be paid for with the lives of many.
So it must be respected.
That which is abused is weakened and lost.
That which is respected is strengthened and wholesome .

If we say that the Illuminati families are descended from the Reptilians, does that constitute hate speech? Is that a racial slur? Do I need to be locked up or silenced now?

--sjkted

Thats a good question.
In my opinion
If something is a fact rather than just emotionalism in expression then a person should always be free to express the facts and let people make up their own minds.
I think the present laws are sufficient. If something is defamation of character for example one can sue.
If some one is inciting a racial riot Klu Klux style then again the law can take care of it.
However a forum is owned by some one, its their house so to peak, so they are entitled to set their rules whether you agree or not, thats a free society.
There are anti social laws too, so really I think everything is adequately covered.

Regards Chris
Ps we are all reptilian, in that part of the human brain is clearly evolved from reptilian brain and that is a medical fact.

Thats a good question.
In my opinion
If something is a fact rather than just emotionalism in expression then a person should always be free to express the facts and let people make up their own minds.
I think the present laws are sufficient. If something is defamation of character for example one can sue.
If some one is inciting a racial riot Klu Klux style then again the law can take care of it.
However a forum is owned by some one, its their house so to peak, so they are entitled to set their rules whether you agree or not, thats a free society.
There are anti social laws too, so really I think everything is adequately covered.

Regards Chris
Ps we are all reptilian, in that part of the human brain is clearly evolved from reptilian brain and that is a medical fact.

Thats a good question.
In my opinion
If something is a fact rather than just emotionalism in expression then a person should always be free to express the facts and let people make up their own minds.
I think the present laws are sufficient. If something is defamation of character for example one can sue.
If some one is inciting a racial riot Klu Klux style then again the law can take care of it.
However a forum is owned by some one, its their house so to peak, so they are entitled to set their rules whether you agree or not, thats a free society.
There are anti social laws too, so really I think everything is adequately covered.

Regards Chris
Ps we are all reptilian, in that part of the human brain is clearly evolved from reptilian brain and that is a medical fact.

So, basically you are saying that if I am sure the Illuminati are descended from the Reptilians and that it is a fact I could prove in a court of law, I ought to be allowed to say it.

If it is just my opinion, theory, or emotional nature expressing itself, I should not be allowed to express it?

This reminds me of the holocaust official theory. Anyone who looks deeper and deeper into the details finds there is some big holes in the official story. Yes, people died and there were atrocities, but there are some big picture items that don't add up. It is illegal in much of Europe to question or theorize about alternative ideas as one might do in presenting a legal argument, so it will be impossible for the truth to come out into the mainstream.

This is exactly what happens when you censor anything other than death threats -- the truth becomes obfuscated and people get confused about reality and the younger generations get brainwashed because they don't know what is real. Generations later, the children are complete idiots because they don't know the reality of anything about anything or even how to find out. Welcome to 2010!

Hi sjkted
I can only speak for myself.
I honestly dont mind what people say.
I have choice I dont have to listen or read.
I would not however be happy if some one was trying to force an opinion on me personally.
Particularly if the intention was to have me take sides and outlaw some one else.
Im speaking generally.
Gobels said that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.

The lie was so powerful that it led to world war two and the German race was miss-led into following a meglomaniac who wanted to dominate the world. If he had won your freedom of speech would not exist.
I dont blame the Germans, if I had been a German I would have believed that I was doing the right thing for "The Fatherland" and laid down my life with millions of others.
So yes free speech--- the speech of incitement that provokes war, small or big time, definitely not.

I have responded in the context of the words Free speech vs hate speech.
Not in line with others posts. I am not taking sides. Taking sides just alienates people.
Chris

Hi sjkted
I can only speak for myself.
I honestly dont mind what people say.
I have choice I dont have to listen or read.
I would not however be happy if some one was trying to force an opinion on me personally.
Particularly if the intention was to have me take sides and outlaw some one else.
Im speaking generally.
Gobels said that if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it.

The lie was so powerful that it led to world war two and the German race was miss-led into following a meglomaniac who wanted to dominate the world. If he had won your freedom of speech would not exist.
I dont blame the Germans, if I had been a German I would have believed that I was doing the right thing for "The Fatherland" and laid down my life with millions of others.
So yes free speech--- the speech of incitement that provokes war, small or big time, definitely not.

I have responded in the context of the words Free speech vs hate speech.
Not in line with others posts. I am not taking sides. Taking sides just alienates people.
Chris

Yes, of course free speech means that anyone can lie including the government. People can be mislead by lies -- no doubt about it.

I've done quite a bit of research on WWII including college German language classes in German history. I just don't believe that a majority of the people believed the lie. Just like now, many people choose not to believe anything is wrong in the world, especially with the economy. This includes many very intelligent people I know. Despite the overwhelming evidence that numerous things are very far amiss, these people and many others choose to stick their heads in the sand.

I can already hear their words. It will be the same words as the Germans. We didn't know. Nobody knew. It was unexpected. None of the Germans knew about the camps. None of them knew about the Nazi atrocities, yet they feel guilty afterwards, despite the fact that they didn't know.

How many real dissenters did the Nazi party have? Who knows? They would have been the first to go to the camps. People who knew about it would not have felt free to speak of who these people were and what happened to them. I mean seriously, do you really believe 100% of the Germans bought into the whole thing? I haven't ever read an account of anyone who attempted to spread the truth about the Nazi party or expose it's lies.

The problem is that they didn't want to know. People don't want to hear the economy is collapsing, because it means on some level they were a sucker, they did some stupid things, and they participated in a system that was unethical. Many people keep status quo, because they would not be able to cope or function, if they went past the mainstream. That is not the same as saying they believed the lie.

So, what's the solution? If you make free speech illegal, there will still be lies told to people. The government will lie either way, so making free speech illegal won't make a difference. I've already demonstrated that making hate speech illegal will quickly turn towards larger forms of censorship.

In my mind, the difference is that if people are freely allowed to express all of their thoughts, the truth cannot be covered and everyone will not be living a lie. Sure, some gullible people will be misled and some people will accept ideologies that are not based in truth, but at the very least the truth will be out there for individuals to discover. Without completely free speech, we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over in history and not even know we are doing that.

sjkted...I agree with your comments. Very well said. It's a slippery slope...isn't it? Things can be rationalized and slanted...this way and that way...depending on the hidden agendas of the participants.